Monday, September 30, 2013

Large scale mob
violence is now a regular feature of life in many American cities. Not just
places like New York, Philadelphia, Chicago, Detroit, St. Louis, Baltimore,
Boston and Washington, D.C. But smaller cities as well. Place like Irondequoit,
New York. Grandview, Missouri. Peoria. Springfield. Big or small, they share this: Local media is loathe to
report it.

On September 14th in Kansas City, hundreds of black
people created mayhem and violence at the Country Club Plaza, part of an
upscale shopping district. Mounted police and members of the SWAT team used
pepper spray to subdue and disburse the crowd. Tweeting from the scene, local NBC
reporter Garrett Haake said, “Police and teens tell me after a movie
got out, a large group came here to avoid the curfew and a fight broke out.
Police arrived and sprayed.” Assaults, robberies, vandalism, broken jaws, property
destruction and other mayhem are a “perennial problem” at the Plaza, says one
Kansas City TV station......To Read More....

The sex jihad is back in the news. Last Thursday, during an address to the
National Constituent Assembly, Tunisian Interior Minister Lotfi Bin Jeddo
announced that Tunisian girls who had traveled to Syria to perform “sex jihad”
had returned after being sexually “swapped between 20, 30, and 100 rebels and
they come back bearing the fruit of sexual contacts [from pregnancies to
diseases] in the name of sexual jihad and we are silent doing nothing and
standing idle.”

Several video interviews with
Tunisian females who went to the sex jihad further testify to the veracity of
this phenomenon. For example, 19-year-old Lamia, upon returning, confessed how
she was made to have sex with countless men—including Pakistanis, Afghanis,
Libyans, Tunisians, Iraqis, Saudis, Somalis, and a Yemeni, all in the context
of the “sex jihad, and that she and many other women were abused, beaten, and forced
to do things “that contradict all sense of human worth.” Now back in Tunisia,
Lamia has been to a doctor finding that she is five months pregnant. Both she
and her unborn are carrying the aids virus (read her whole story)............To Read More......

“We walk out of meetings because North Korea is in the
chair.”Well, there it is.
Captured in that one single line is a magnificent, nearly poetic distillation
of all the brow-furrowing complaints about the Conservative government’s
attitude to the United Nations that the New Democratic Party’s Paul Dewar and a
clutch of Chrétien-era diplo-mandarins have been successfully grabbing
headlines with across the country all week.

The line comes from Carolyn McAskie, a senior fellow with
the Graduate School …..“We’re increasingly denying ourselves a place at the
table,” McAskie told reporters at a press conference in Ottawa on Monday. “We
walk out of meetings because North Korea is in the chair. The reason you go to
these meetings is so that you can engage all 193 (UN member states). You don’t
pick your friends and your enemies. They’re all there. You go, you play the
game ... if you’re not at the table, you don’t have a voice.”

We walk out of meetings because North Korea is in the
chair. Like that’s supposed to be a bad thing?…… Well, wait just a second. The annual gathering of the UN
General Assembly in New York is a yearly convention of the world’s most
notorious mass murderers, rapists, torturers and war criminals, and we’re
supposed to be upset that Canada is not especially popular with these monsters?….To Read More….

My Take –I posted
this in order to challenge your sense of morality, and to further explore the concept of universal moral jurisdiction by the U.N. and the
International Criminal Court, both gigantic failures.

“Universal
jurisdiction arises out of the post-Second World War environment, the first
real applications of it being trials by the victors against Nazi and Japanese
officials, among others. They created, in effect, a set of ex post facto crimes
that were morally unimpeachable but raised significant legal problems. The
magnitude of the evil, however, properly offset such qualms and new
international legal norms were established.”

However, he states
just before this;

“It must
also contend with even more knotty moral realities – which are usually ignored
in the academic and theoretical conversation on the subject – and multiple
examples wherein the greater good may well be served by not pursuing even
heinous war criminals for various ethically persuasive reasons.”

In short; war crimes
are for losers! Stalin butchered tens of millions of his own people. Why wasn't
he tried at Nuremburg? Castro killed as many or more per ratio than even
Stalin. Why didn't Britain and Spain attempt to try him at the ICC as hard as
they attempted to try Pinochet? Some time back I wrote an article titled;
"What Constitutes A Crime Against Humanity?" I think it’s worth
republishing now.

__________

Recently I had an interesting conversation with one of my
customers who turned out to be an atheist. The conversation started out about
how Islam is not a religion of peace (and I don’t care what these idiots in
politics say) since their religion requires them not to be moderate. They can
kill, rape, steal, lie and do whatever else they like in the name of Islam and
its ok. That led to a discussion on the Crusades and the Inquisition.
Eventually we came to atheists.

Being an atheist she proclaimed that at least they don’t go around killing
people. I looked at her with a smile of incredulity and said…I’m sorry…except
for the environmentalists atheists have killed more people than anyone in
modern history.

Although under no circumstances should it be construed that I am justifying the
atrocities of the Crusades and Inquisition; but Lenin, Stalin, Hitler and Mao
were atheists and killed far more than all of those combined, and with the
exception of Hitler, those they killed were all their own people. Mao
deliberately starved thirty six million to death because he needed cash to buy
armament. How did he get it? He sold the food these people needed to survive.
He said that this may only be the beginning and far more may have to die for
him to attain his goals. So much for the “people’s revolution”!

These people committed some of the greatest crimes against humanity every
recorded in history, yet Hitler is mostly singled out for that distinction.
Why? Not that he didn’t deserve it mind you; but that is the rub isn’t it? Who
decides what constitutes a crime against humanity?

Hitler proved that killing 6 million Jews is a crime against humanity because
his henchmen were charged, found guilty, and many were executed for carrying
out his orders. Joseph Stalin killed fifty million of his own people with the
help of (among a host of others) Leonid Brezhnev, who became the leader of the
USSR from 1964 till 1982. Neither of which were smeared with the epithet of
‘mass murderer’ or charged with crimes aginst humanity by any sitting official
of any kind anywhere. In point of fact, neither Nixon, Ford or
Jimmy Carter seemed to have any problem at all dealing with this
mass murderer.

Walter Duranty even received a Pulitzer Prize for writing articles that claimed
that Stalin wasn't killing anyone; and everyone in journalism working in Russia
knew his work was nothing but lies. A Pulitzer Prize that the New York Times
refuses to return ; a Pulitzer Prize the Pulitzer Prize committee, in spite of
the fact that it has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that Duranty was a
fraud, refuses to
revoke.

Mao Tse Tung killed even more people yet Richard Nixon along with Henry
Kissinger sat around like old buddies with Mao and his partner in mass murder
Chou En-lai. Apparently you have to lose a war to be a mass murderer; perhaps
that explains why no one in the environmental movement has ever been charged
with any crime against humanity. The media and the political element will only
stand up for what is right when the agenda fits their needs or view of reality
- facts notwithstanding. Thomas Sowell made a worthwhile observation regarding
the media and this mass murderer saying; "The mainstream media never
expressed half the outrage about Mao Zedong as they did about Ronald Reagan.
Yet, when it came to killing millions of innocent civilians, even Hitler was an
amateur compared to Mao."

Then let's not forget Hollywood's favorite atheist and mass
murderer, Fidel Castro. "According to the Cuba Archive Project, the Castro
regime – with firing squads, forced-labor camps and drownings at sea – has
caused an estimated 102,000 Cuban deaths. Cuba was a nation of 6.5 million
people in 1960. Put your calculator to it and you’ll see that—per-capita wise--Castro
and Che were close on the heels of their heroes and mentors Stain and
Mao." These men slaughter men, children and even pregnant women; and
yet prominent people today, who should know better, have this to say;

2.Meeting Fidel Castro were the eight most
important hours of my life." Steven Spielberg.

3."Very
selfless and moral. One of the world's wisest men." Oliver Stone

4.Cuba's
Elvis." Dan Rather

5.“A Dream
come true." Supermodel Naomi Campbell

6."Socialism
works. I think Cuba can prove that." Chevy Chase”.

7."Castro is an extraordinary man. He is warm
and understanding and seems extremely humane." Gina Lollobrigida

In 1996 when Castro visited NYC he was called the “The Toast of
Manhattan” by Time magazine. Newsweek called him “The Hottest Ticket in
Manhattan” discussing the social swirl he had caused. Humberto Fontova wrote an
article about this called, Happy Thanksgiving! (From Fidel and Che) about how
Fidel is embraced by people that should know better. We are aghast of the 9/11
destruction of the Twin Towers, yet Fidel Castro and Che had planned something
just as heinous, if not more so, in 1962.

“Cuban agents had targeted Macy’s, Gimbel’s, Bloomingdales, and
Manhattan’s Grand Central Station with a dozen incendiary devices and 500 kilos
of TNT. The holocaust was set for detonation the following week, on the day
after Thanksgiving…. the year’s biggest shopping day, for good measure.
Thousands of New Yorkers, probably mostly women and children, were to be
incinerated and entombed.”

Was he treated as a murderous maniac?

First there was “a luncheon at the Council on Foreign
Relations. After holding court there for a rapt David Rockefeller, along with
Robert McNamara, Dwayne Andreas, and Random House’s Harold Evans, Castro
flashed over to Mort Zuckerman’s Fifth Avenue pad, where a throng of Beltway glitterati,
including Mike Wallace, Peter Jennings, Tina Brown, Bernard Shaw, and Barbara
Walters, all jostled for a photo op, and stood in line for Castro’s autograph.
Diane Sawyer was so overcome in the mass-murderer’s presence that she rushed
up, broke into a toothy smile, wrapped her arms around Castro, and smooched him
warmly on the cheek.”

“God Bless you, Fidel,” boomed Pastor Calvin Butts of Harlem’s Abyssinian
Baptist Church while introducing Castro on another New York visit four years
later. The People’s Weekly World described Castro’s visit as such: “The
audience which included New York Democratic representatives Charles Rangel
enthusiastically greeted the Communist leader with a ten minute standing
ovation. Chants of ‘FIDEL!-FIDEL! VIVA-FIDEL!’ resounded from the rafters.”

“Then with Congressperson Maxine Waters looking on in rapture, a beaming
Charlie Rangel waddled up to the podium beside the terrorist (and racist)
Castro and engulfed him in a mighty bear hug. Castro had to catch his breath, but
he smiled and returned the rotund senator’s passionate abrazo.”

In March of 2011 Humberto Fontova wrote and article entitled, "Women’s History Month and Castro’s Female
Victims" wherein he outlines the media's complete
contempt for truth, reality and the poor innocents who suffered at his hands.
He states; "When Barbara Walters sat quivering alongside Fidel Castro
in 1977 cooing: “Fidel Castro has brought very high literacy and great
health-care to his country. His personal magnetism is powerful.” dozens of
Cuban suffragettes suffered in torture chambers within walking distance of the
hyperventilating Ms. Walters." He went on to say; "I also
apologize for singling out Barbara Walters. NBC’s Andrea Mitchell also had
praise for the tryant: “Fidel Castro is old-fashioned, courtly–even paternal, a
thoroughly fascinating figure!”

And what was Casto's reaction to all of this adoration? “You people are the
cream of the crop!” beamed the Stalinist/terrorist to the smiling throng he’d
come within a hair of nuking in 1962.

“Hear, hear!” chirped the delighted guests, while tinkling their wine
glasses in honor of the smirking agent of their near vaporization." There
really isn't any cure for stupid! Then again, perhaps it is just that this
doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day? Either way.....there
really isn't any cure for stupid.

What if one person is deliberately murdered for philosophical reasons, is that
a crime against humanity? We know for sure that it takes somewhere between one
death and six million deaths to constitute a crime against humanity and it must
fit the media-political pagadigm of the day. What if tens of millions have been
killed as a result of policies pursued by the environmental movement and
implemented by governmental authorities? Surely that must be considered a crime
against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of
the day?

For those who continue to say there are provisions which allows for DDT use in
emergency situations and that DDT wasn’t banned in many areas of Africa;
baloney, it is all wall
paper.

“Yet
African states are still put under pressure to avoid using DDT. This year the
EU warned of possible agricultural sanctions against Uganda, Kenya and other
countries that defiantly use DDT and vow to continue doing so. An EU official
warned the Ugandan authorities that if indoor spraying of DDT meant there was
‘a risk of contamination of the food chain’, then while ‘[it] would not
automatically lead to a ban of food products…it will mean that that particular
consignment cannot be sent to Europe’ (5). ‘The EU should be saying that DDT is
safe and poses no threat to EU consumers’, says Innis. ‘Instead they make
either direct or oblique threats about possible trade sanctions. What they’re
really saying is, “We’ve benefited from DDT and gotten rid of malaria but you
people in Africa cannot do the same”.’

“Almost
two decades after the country banned the use of DDT, the Government is under
pressure to lift the ban as one of the effective ways of controlling the spread
of malaria. At the same time, there is pressure on the Government not to lift
the ban on the insecticide, which remains banned in many countries in the
world. The pressure comes in the wake of the heads of state conference in
Abuja, which passed a resolution to put emphasis on and promote the use of
indoor residual spraying to help fight the malaria vector.”

The outside pressure is tremendous on these leaders from the green
movement.

We now know that by not using DDT millions have died unnecessarily and yet the
greenies, the EU, United Nations authorities and the Environmental Protection
Agency continue to stand against its use. It would appear to me that someone is
guilty of crimes against humanity. The world court is hot to try people for all
sorts of things, but why is it that no one with the authority to charge
greenies with these crimes has noticed that a crime against humanity has been
committed? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media political-paradigm of the day!

Depending on who you read, the number that have died from malaria alone runs
between fifty and one hundred million since 1972. That doesn’t count the many
other mosquito borne diseases that are transmitted to an unprotected
population. Since all of this is a direct result of greenie activities; is this
not a crime against humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political
paradigm of the day!

They stand against a genetically modified food called Golden Rice,
which would prevent five hundred thousand children from going blind each year
in Southeast Asia. In Africa they convinced leaders not to let their starving
people eat genetically modified corn because it would cause cancer in their
people. Untold numbers died. Thousands died and tens of thousands were sickened
in South America when they convinced leaders there to eliminate chlorine in the
water supplies because they claimed it caused cancer. Since all of this is a
direct result of greenie activities; is this not a crime against humanity?
Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of the day!

There are those who arrogantly and smugly scoff at the very idea that anything
the green movement does can be considered a crime; and if this was sixty,
fifty, forty or even thirty years ago society would have agreed with them. Very
few actually knew what was really going on and no one listened. We simply
didn't know any better because the media kept the truth from society. But we
now have the internet, and that has allowed the evidence of time and science to
be made known. We now know that the positions they had taken were not only
wrong but evil. Evil because the environmental stands that they have taken have
been tested by time; and people are still dying and suffering needlessly
because of them, and they know it. Why has no one been charged with crimes
aginst humanity? Perhaps this doesn't fit the media-political paradigm of
the day!

They know it! At the heart of the environmental movement they believe that
humanity is the planet's greatest disease and must be eliminated. Prince
Phillip once said that he would like to be reincarnated as a virus for that
purpose. Apparently being detached from reality is a requirement to be a Royal
and a greenie. For someone to be aware that they are taking a position that
they know will kill untold numbers has to be criminal. Yet they continue to
insist on standing their ground on all of their misanthropic
postions. How can this not be crimes against humanity? Perhaps
this doesn't fit the media -political paradigm of the day!

If you don’t want to call these events crimes against humanity, could we at
least agree that this certainly represents depraved indifference? That is a
crime also, and yet these are the people deciding what pesticides (if any)
should be allowed, if genetically modified foods can be grown and sold, if
chlorine and fluoride should be allowed in our water supplies, whether we can
use fertilizers and herbicides on our fields, what foods we should eat, whether
hydroelectric dams can be built and whether oil should be or will be drilled
and where.

Does anyone feel any more confident now? Perhaps we can just get a copy of the
New York Times to find out how we should feel.

The Wall Street Journal printed a major story on the
aftermath of the financial crisis and the great recession and the lessons
supposedly learned. In “Lessons of the
Rescue: A Drama in Five Acts” author David Wessell claims, “[f]ive
years after the financial crisis, enough time has passed to identify key
moments in the war to save the world economy — and to derive lessons from the
scramble.” (emphasis added) Wessell also claimed that “[f]ive years after the
near-collapse of the global financial system, Americans could justifiably celebrate
victory.” Wessel presents some limited criticism from the mainstream of Fed and
Treasury mondustrial
policy during the fall 2008“crisis,” 2009’s failed fiscal stimulus,
and the nearly continuous rounds of quantitative easing during this period of
slow recovery. But Wessel overall presents a picture in which, absent those
mondustrial policies, things would have been much worse and the major error in
the policies was a matter of them being too little too late.

Wessel appears totally oblivious to the fact that absent
the Fed as an enabler with its overly expansionary credit creation policy,
first in the 1990s, and then in the mid-2000s, neither the dot-com boom-bust
with its unfinished recession, nor the housing bubble, general boom and
subsequent bust, which precipitated the financial crisis, would have happened. Roger Garrison sums
it up succinctly:….To Read More….

What’s a fanatic
to do when his own data proves
the “problem” he’s been using to scam billions of dollars out of terrified
people isn’t real? Well, if you’re the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel
on Climate Change, you hold some sweaty closed-door meetings – “transparency” is not a concern
for these people – and doctor the report until it’s something you can spin
politically.

Then you lunge
for the cameras and spin away, giving us the astounding spectacle of so-called
“scientists” acting like primitive tribal witch doctors.

The Angry Sky
Gods have shown you mercy for fifteen years and counting, carbon sinners! But
soon the death-fire will rain from the sky, unless you pay tribute!

(Apologies to actual witch doctors, who have
much smaller expense accounts than global warming con artists, and put on a
much better show.)....To Read More.....

Salt water was his life, according to the family of Henry
"Butch" Konietzky, who died Monday night after he was exposed to
bacteria in the Halifax River. "It's just horrifying, it's just totally
horrifying," said Debbie Stack, Konietzky's sister-in-law.Stack said it took just 28 hours for the
bacteria to kill Konietzky."They
tried multiple antibiotics, but nothing was touching it -- nothing even phased
it," Stack said.

Konietzky, 59, was walking knee deep in the river on
Saturday, setting crab traps.The next
day, he woke up and noticed what looked like a bug bite on his leg."They did not take it serious until it
started festering and quickly, and then he started feeling ill," said
Stack.Konietzky was in the emergency
room by Sunday night. On Monday, he was gone.

Doctors said Konietzky was exposed to Vibrio vulnificus, a bacteria that quickly spread through his
body and shut down his kidneys and liver.Experts said the bacteria lives in warm brackish or seawater.Two cases of the same illness that killed
Konietzky, have been reported in Volusia and Flagler counties in the last month.Health officials are now urging people to
avoid eating raw shellfish and going into the water with open wounds…..To ReadMore….

My Take -So, the greenies want us all to "return to nature, and become one with the biosphere". If that style of living was so great then why did anyone ever abandon 'all natural' living. So now, would someone like to explain to me why we want to return to nature? Nature isn't loving, it isn't hateful, it has no emotions or feelings. Nature is a biological machine and doesn't care about us in the least. Furthermore, nature is trying to kill us and has done so forever. Get over it.

However, for those who really thinks that going 'back to nature' will create utopia, I encourage them to move to countries where they're already living that way; in poverty, misery, squallor, disease , suffering and early death. So please feel free to walk your talk.

Well, this last few months have really been active on
Paradigms and Demographics with a whole new and active reader base in mainland
China.They went from a few irregular hits
to surging into the top ten all time.Why?When that happens there is
a subject the readers in a country are interested in, and those article links
will be hit accordingly.But no single
subject was scrutinized during this upsurge.In fact there were weeks where China was the number two country. This last two weeks has also been
surprising.Indonesia has surged into
the top ten for the month and this week was the number two country.Why?Same answer….I can’t see a pattern.

I seem to have developed a large reader base in Bulgaria,
and that was caused by their concern about fracking.Apparently many in Bulgaria were dissatisfied
with the government’s resistance to fracking.That previous year there was a particularly cold winter in Eastern Europe and fuel
costs were not only high but unavailable in parts of Eastern Europe, and people
froze to death.Many of those readers
continue to visit daily.With my
Slovenian readers it started with solar energy and many of those readers
continue to visit.Finland, Sweden and
Japan were strong for a while and those involved solar energy, but their
interest peaks and wanes.

Here is this week’s breakdown for the top ten.United States, Indonesia, Germany, China,
Ukraine, Bulgaria, Slovenia, Canada, Russia and France.I can’t find a pattern for my Indonesian
readers either, but I certainly welcome their interest!
The all time top ten are;
United
States, Germany, Russia, France, United Kingdom, Canada, Bulgaria, Ukraine,
China and Slovenia.

Wishful thinking is the formation of beliefs and making decisions according to what might be
pleasing to imagine instead of by appealing to evidence, rationality, or reality. Studies have consistently shown that
holding all else equal, subjects will predict positive outcomes to be more
likely than negative outcomes (see valence effect).

On the other hand, some psychologists believe that
positive thinking is able to positively influence behavior and so bring about
better results. They call it "Pygmalion Effect".

Christopher Booker
described wishful thinking in terms of “the fantasy cycle” ... a pattern that
recurs in personal lives, in politics, in history – and in storytelling. When
we embark on a course of action which is unconsciously driven by wishful
thinking, all may seem to go well for a time, in what may be called the “dream
stage”. But because this make-believe can never be reconciled with reality, it
leads to a “frustration stage” as things start to go wrong, prompting a more
determined effort to keep the fantasy in being. As reality presses in, it leads
to a “nightmare stage” as everything goes wrong, culminating in an “explosion
into reality”, when the fantasy finally falls apart....To Read More....

My Take -This is what I call the "Inevitability Factor: When reality reaches it's zenith!"Think Global Warming activists as you read this.

By Alan CarubaThis appeared hereand I wish to thank Alan for allowing me to publish his work. RK

On the conservative side of
the political spectrum, we frequently refer to liberals as “low information
voters”, a nice way of saying they are stupid. From their point of view,
however, we are the stupid ones. And not merely stupid, but evil.

The divide between
conservatives and liberals can be seen in the outcomes of the many polls and
surveys that are announced on a daily basis. The numbers are depressingly the
same; ranging from 40-40% or 50-50%, depending on how many respond that they
don’t have an opinion. There is, moreover, what I call the “thirty percent
syndrome” of reliable liberal responses no matter what the issue may be. They
are the hard core.

There is, however, a critical
difference between stupidity and ignorance. All of us are ignorant about
something or many things. I surely am. I am in awe of people who can make
things or fix things. I appreciate it when someone demonstrates expertise that
informs me about a topic.

If you Google “Americans +
stupid” you will discover that the subject of whether Americans are stupid
generates a significant number of news items and articles. For example, in late
February, Reuters reported on a speech Secretary of State John Kerry gave to
students when he was visiting Berlin. While discussing America’s virtues, such
as tolerance of other points of view, he said, “The reason is, that’s freedom,
in America you have a right to be stupid.”

Kerry, who I have always
regarded as a dim bulb, inadvertently spoke a truth about the way those
currently in high office, the President, his Cabinet members, and staff regard
Americans. Those who oppose their policies and legislative agenda are “stupid”
and, if the President is to be taken at his word these days, Republicans are
“extremists” and other pejoratives. He is a master of the propaganda technique
of repeating a lie often enough until it becomes “truth.”

I find it depressing to find
that so many of our elected representatives display their ignorance on a daily
basis. It is depressing to know that officials appointed to positions of great
responsibility in our government see it only has an opportunity to impose some
ideology or agenda that is disconnected from science or from any facts that support
their machinations.

Let me say that I have long
regarded Barack Obama as stupid. His incompetence manifests itself daily. He
cannot speak without the assistance of a Tele-Prompter. He has zero experience with
the way people make a living or run a business. He has zero experience
regarding military affairs and appears to have no knowledge of history. His
lack of knowledge about economics has left the nation with the highest debt and
deficit in its history, and millions unemployed.

Obama is currently
campaigning to make the low information voters believe that Republicans in
Congress want to “shut down the government” and this is patently untrue.
Speaker of the House, John Boehner, now daily repeats that Republicans in the
House do not want to shut down the government, but are addressing whether to
defund Obamacare. There’s a difference, but Obama and his minions will repeat
and repeat and repeat the lie. In truth, most Republican leaders in Congress
know that defunding is a fool’s dream.

The single greatest example
of stupidity in America today is the Affordable Care Act—Obamacare—a law that
is increasing unemployment, forcing others into part-time, unemployment, and
denying physicians the right to practice medicine while stripping patients of
their privacy, and will ultimately deny care to some judged ineligible due to
age or a previous condition.

On September 17, Jonathan
Jacobs, the director of the Institute for Criminal Justice Ethics and chairman
of the Department of Philosophy at John Jay College of Criminal Justice, was
published in The Wall Street Journal. “As Education
Declines, So Does Civic Culture.”

Noting the “laments from
graduates” that emerge with student loan debt and “wondering if their studies
have prepared them for jobs and careers” Jacobs expressed the opinion that “A
less familiar but even more troubling problem is that their education did not
prepare them for responsible civic life.”

That is a very nice way of
saying that, by the time many reach college, they are poorly prepared for that
level of “higher” education and too often pick up a diploma because colleges
and universities these days are frequently just giant sausage factories that
exist to process students through while squeezing every dollar out of them. The
problem begins, however, in kindergarten with a thoroughly dumbed-down
educational system.

Jacobs acknowledges this
saying, “The trouble begins before college. Large numbers of high school
students have faced so few challenges and demands that they are badly
unprepared for college.”

“Even after three or four
years of undergraduate education, many students,” said Jacobs, “still cannot
recognize reasoning when they encounter it.”

Reasoning is a cognitive
function that employs facts and analysis. Much of what passes for political discourse
from the White House and Democratic politicians these days is based on emotion
no matter what the issue may be; whether it is gun control or invading Syria.

Conservatives are denigrated
for actually pointing to the Constitution and suggesting that what is being
proposed is forbidden by it. If, however, the intended audience has never read
the Constitution and has a warped or inadequate understanding of American
history, that kind of demagoguery works.

“A great many graduating
students have little idea of what genuine intellectual exploration involves,”
said Jacobs. They have passed through all phases of the educational system
lacking the capacity to think through, not just the issues of the day, but have
failed to acquire the most basic skills. He noted that employers frequently
discover that “many college graduates can barely construct a coherent paragraph
and many have precious little knowledge of the world—the natural world, the
social world, the historical world, or the cultural world.”

These college graduates are
often the sons and daughters of a generation of college graduates who likewise
were regurgitated into the world with a comparable lack of knowledge and
skills.

How many times has Jay Leno
gone onto the street to ask people questions about events and personalities,
only to demonstrate how abysmally ignorant they are? This kind of street
theatre is repeated all the time in YouTube videos. A recent one asked people
to sign a petition to have Karl Marx run for office!

“The cost to America of
failing to reverse the trend toward trivializing education will be more than
just economic,” said Jacobs. “It will be reflected in social friction,
coarsened politics, failed and foolish policies, and a steady decline in the
concern to do anything to reverse the rot.”

The late comedian, George
Carlin, once said, “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large
groups.” I thought of that when I heard that Barack Obama had been reelected.

I have been trying to
remember when there was so much anger between the Democrats and Republicans. Or
maybe I should say between liberals and conservatives? Or maybe I should say
between the Tea Party and the Republican Party? Or maybe I should say those who
find the President of the United States a contemptible liar who has diminished
a once great superpower to an object of disrespect?

There is plenty of anger to
go around. The mood of the nation is one of anger from one end of the political
spectrum to the other.

What is one to make of a
White House senior advisor, Dan Pfeiffer, who compared Republicans to
arsonists, hostage-takers, and suicide bombers? The Majority Leader in the
Senate, Harry Reid, told Republicans that “There’s no need for conversations”
telling them to send over a continuing resolution without defunding Obamacare.
He has called Tea Party members of the House “anarchists.”

Meanwhile, Republicans who do
not want to see the government shut down are labeled “RINOs”
(Republicans in Name Only). Instead of keeping the spotlight on the Democrats
who foisted Obamacare on us, we have been watching the Republican Party tear
itself apart.

As the Wall Street Journal
columnist,Kimberly
Strassel put it, “The tragic reality is that this vote isn't shaping up to
be all that perilous for the owners of the law. Nobody is even talking about
Democrats. Nobody has put an iota of pressure on them for months. Every camera,
every microphone has been trained on the GOP.”

Her
colleague, Daniel Henniger,
described the fratricide arising from the dispute over defunding Obamacare,
saying, “This effort has not, for some time now, been about victory. It has
become as RedState’s Erick Erickson put it with his usual eloquences, about
shining a light on the ‘cockroaches’ in the GOP. Ted Cruz has spent months
berating his own side as ‘appeasers’ who care only about ‘being invited to all
the right cocktail parties in town.”

The
result has been a GOP in meltdown while the President happily joined in on
Friday calling the Tea Party members in Congress—though not by name--
“extremists.”

All
this has brought to mind Barry Goldwater’s declaration to the Republican Party
when he accepted their nomination to run for President in 1964. “Let me remind
you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And
moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue.” He lost by a landslide to
the incumbent, President Lyndon B. Johnson.

I understood what Goldwater meant, but
extremism has never played well in American politics. Indeed, the Constitution
is constructed so that any form of extremism can be thwarted by the checks and
balances that slow any rush toward ill-considered legislation. That, however,
did not work when the Democrats controlled both houses of Congress and imposed
Obamacare on everyone.

Those who believe that, even with a
Republican majority after the 2014 midterm elections, President Obama would not
veto a bill to repeal Obamacare are deluding themselves.

Hating Obama is not enough. Understanding how
our republic works is essential.Tea Party came about initially as a protest
against Obamacare and then grew has a grassroots political movement that
elected a number of those it supported to the House. It is this bloc of votes
that Speaker John Boehner has struggled to work with. In the Senate, Tea Party
members include Ted Cruz, Rand Paul, Tom Coburn, Marco Rubio, and Pat Toomey.

Obama has many faults, but he has proven
himself a master manipulator. The current struggle over Obamacare has played
into his hands. That is unfortunate because what the GOP must do between now
and the 2014 midterm elections is to focus on defeating those Democrats up for
election who have supported Obama.

The general anger against Obamacare will gain
in momentum, but if the GOP is seen as a bunch of crazies, it will affect the
outcome. That’s the way it played out in 1964.

At this writing the possibility of a
government shutdown is fifty-fifty. It will be over quickly, but by then the
GOP will have dealt itself a disservice.

Until the GOP secures control of the Senate,
the House, and the White House Obamacare will remain the law of the land. That
is very bad news for all Americans and the future of America. Meanwhile, it is
a good idea to remember that many bad laws have been reversed and repealed.

Will New
Yorkers elect a new mayor who dedicated himself to the Sandinistas in the
1980s, honeymooned in Cuba in the 1990s (in violation of a U.S. travel ban),
and participated in a New York City Council event honoring Zimbabwe's tyrannous
Robert Mugabe in 2002?

Right now, it
looks that way. In 1988, Bill de Blasio went to Nicaragua to aid the Marxist,
Soviet-supported Sandinistas. He came home, as The New York Times put it, with
"a vision of the possibilities of unfettered leftist government."
Today, 25 years later, New York City Public Advocate de Blasio, who remains
"very proud" of his radical activities (he has since regretted his
Mugabe "mistake"), is the front-runner in New York's mayoral race.
Recent polls show the Democrat nominee with a whopping 40-point margin over
Republican candidate Joe Lohta.

That could
change if two things happen: 1) If New Yorkers actually figure out that they
are about to elect the most Marxist mayor in Big Apple history; 2) If the
concept appalls them. Both are Big Ifs......To Read More....

If you think
Obamacare is bad for consumers and patients think about this: how would you
like to spend between twelve and sixteen years of your life in grueling and
expensive academic training, only to have politicians and bureaucrats dictating
to you years later how you will practice your craft and how much money you’ll
be allowed to earn?

Let’s be clear about medical doctors.
Any individual who can genuinely earn the title “M.D.” is worthy of significant
respect, and one would hope that an entire association of M.D.’s would be
equally as worthy. Unfortunately the American Medical Association – the
professional group that has purported to represent physicians in the U.S. for
over a century - managed to foolishly get itself caught in the crossfire of the
“Obamacare” war over the past few years. Now, MD’s – both those few who remain
members of the AMA and the majority of physicians who are not members – as well
as the practice of medicine itself, are all set to be big losers in the coming
months and years.…..To Read More….

The lesson here
is this: to minimize the profit motive personally is virtuous; to minimize it
in public policy is vice. What has lifted more people out of poverty,
charity or economic freedom? It’s not even close.

Charity is wonderful, and I’ll be the first to say we
have an obligation to share our gifts, be they material, intellectual or talent
oriented. Yet whether our redistributionist endeavor is charity — and charity
is voluntary redistribution — or the less noble, coercive, outsourcing of
charity known as government programs, there first must be wealth to
redistribute.……Sane people live in the real world, however, where different
rules apply. One of them is that since the spiritual/moral motive is the
highest reason to serve your fellow man, it is also the rarest.…… profit
encourages your fellow man to serve you even if he doesn’t give a darn about
you….To Read More….

Sunday, September 29, 2013

One of the most critical of America’s Founding principles
is private property. Without our right to private property in the United
States, we have nothing. I believe our current administration and their
socialistic views seek to destroy private property in America. And like anyone
seeking to destroy something precious, the attack will come in a disguise and
chip away incrementally. A steady push has already been underway to remove the
free market system from America, which rewards success, and to move us toward Socialism,
which punishes success, redistributes wealth, and encourages “collective
ownership” while promoting the belief of “global dominion.”

The Obama administration will be implementing 68 new
regulations per day during the first 90 days in 2013. Many of these
onerous regulatory reforms will be directed at small business and agriculture.How do you destroy agriculture, including the
pet industry, in America?

UK Chancellor George Osborne tells the
environmental lobby today that Britain should not be “in front of the rest of
the world” in tackling climate change. In an interview with The Times, the
Chancellor dismissed as a gimmick Ed Miliband’s pledge to freeze energy prices,
but he signalled that he could ease green measures if prices continued to rise.
Michael Fallon, the Energy Minister, is understood to be looking at reducing
the burden of environmental measures on household bills in the next
Conservative manifesto. --Francis Elliott, Alice Thomson and Rachel Sylvester, (subscription
required) The Times, 28 September 2013

On June 8 2008, only five Members of
Parliament – Christopher Chope, Philip Davies, Peter Lilley, Andrew Tyrie and
Ann Widdecombe (all Conservatives) – voted against the Climate Change Bill.
They are worth naming, I think, because “the Five Members” who defied executive
fiat in the 1640s have an honoured place in our history. The modern Five
Members, four of whom are still MPs, should be honoured too. But all the other
Tories – nearly 200 of them – voted for the Bill, led by an enthusiastically
green David Cameron. What this means is that energy prices will go on rising
for at least a generation. What that means is that the most unavoidable element
in any household’s cost of living will make that household poorer each year for
the foreseeable future. And what that means is that any incumbent government
will find it extremely hard to get re-elected. –Charles Moore, Daily Telegraph, 27 September 2013

By putting energy prices at the heart of the
political debate, [Britain's opposition leader Ed] Miliband has raised a series
of interconnected issues. [UK chancellor] George Osborne is known to have been
increasingly impressed by the former chancellor Lord Lawson’s more sceptical
view of the orthodoxy on global warming – an orthodoxy reaffirmed last week by
the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. I ask David Cameron if he, too,
has shifted his ground on greenery. “I’m certainly not more Lawsonian. It’s
worth looking at what this report this week says – that [there is a] 95 per
cent certainty that human activity is altering the climate. I think I said this
almost 10 years ago: if someone came to you and said there is a 95 per cent
chance that your house might burn down, even if you are in the 5 per cent that
doesn’t agree with it, you still take out the insurance, just in case.”
--Matthew d’Ancona, The Sunday Telegraph, 29 September
2013

From the geniuses who gave us vanishing
Himalayan glaciers and similar jeux d’esprit comes another million-word
exercise in Nostradamus-style science to be hung on a very robust nail in the
smallest room in the house. The dystopian predictions of the Intergovernmental
Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) are now awaited by the saner elements of the
population with the same keen anticipation as the special edition of a
favourite television comedy show on Christmas Day. -- Gerald Warner, The Scotsman on Sunday, 29 September
2013

A leading global warming expert believes the
latest UN warning on man-made climate change is a "big gamble" as
temperatures have not increased since 1997. Dr Benny Peiser, of Lord Lawson's
Global Warming Policy Foundation, argued today's report from the
Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is based on flawed models. Dr
Peiser does not doubt the climate has changed, but the report has failed to
explain why temperatures have not risen since 1997. He said: "The IPCC are
gambling that temperatures will rise soon. They ignore the fact that their
models have a problem, and they are unable to say when the temperature will
start rising again. That is a gamble.” --Owen Bennett, Daily Express, 28 September 2013

The global warming ‘pause’ has now lasted for
almost 17 years and shows no sign of ending – despite the unexplained failure
of climate scientists’ computer models to predict it. The Mail on Sunday has
also learnt that because 2013 has been relatively cool, it is very likely that
by the end of this year, world average temperatures will have crashed below the
‘90 per cent probability’ range projected by the models. Last night independent
climate scientist Nic Lewis – an accredited IPCC reviewer and co-author of
peer-reviewed papers – pointed out that taking start years of 2001, 2002 or
2003 would suggest a cooling trend of 0.02-0.05C per decade, though this would
not be statistically significant. --David Rose, Mail on Sunday, 29 September 2013

The IPCC has thrown down the gauntlet. Should
the pause continue they are toast. --Judith Curry, head of climate science at
the Georgia Institute of Technology, Mail on Sunday, 29 September 2013

In the climate debate, which side are you on?
Do you think climate change is the most urgent crisis facing mankind requiring
almost unlimited spending? Or that it’s all a hoax, dreamt up to justify
socialism, and nothing is happening anyway? Because those are the only two
options, apparently. I know this from bitter experience. Every time I argue for
a lukewarm “third way” — that climate change is real but slow, partly man-made
but also susceptible to natural factors, and might be dangerous but more likely
will not be — I am attacked from both sides. I get e-mails saying the
greenhouse theory is bunk and an ice age is on the way; and others from
guardians of the flame calling me a “denier”. --Matt Ridley, ,(subscription
required) The Times, 28 September 2013

In the past 16 years, temperatures have not
risen at all, that is a fact, and before 1980 we had 30 years of cooling. Since
1950, only 20 years have seen rising temperatures and nobody knows when
temperatures will rise again. If climate scientists were honest enough to
acknowledge their predictions were for excessive warming they would have to
admit that their climate models could be in serious trouble. The reality
regarding climate change is that the outlook is much better than people are
being led to believe with scary reports like this. We are not facing imminent
disaster, temperatures aren't rising as predicted and we have much more time
than is claimed by climate alarmists to get our policies right. Unless global
temperatures begin to rise again in the next few years it is very likely going
to suffer an existential blow to its credibility. --Benny Peiser, Daily Express, 28 September 2013

Everyone likes a consensus. The word itself
has only positive connotations, regardless of the conclusions reached. When the
consensus is said to be among experts — rather than the more obviously fallible
world of politics — then that’s it: opinion is elevated to the status of
unchallengeable fact. This is when things can get really dangerous. --Dominic
Lawson, ,(subscription required) The Sunday Times, 29 September 2013

It is thanks to the Labour leader Ed Miliband
that we are paying dearly for the Climate Change Act - easily the most
expensive law ever put through Parliament. Yet the man who sent us down this
disastrous path now wants, by law, to stop electricity prices rising, just when
our energy companies must spend billions of pounds to bring his mad dream to
fruition. –Christopher Booker, The Sunday Telegraph, 29 September
2013

We're a nation that was founded by principled
revolutionaries who took on the super power of their day over almost
insignificant taxes they felt Britain had no right to levy. These men were
small government fanatics who felt very comfortable with God, guns, and taking
care of themselves. The principles those men put in place and the standards
they set were what helped turn America into the most successful nation that has
ever existed on God's green earth.

In order to be
fair, it's worth noting that in some respects, we've done a better job of
fulfilling the vision of the Founding Fathers than they were able to accomplish
in their lifetimes. We got rid of slavery, became the world's only superpower,
and delivered a level of economic prosperity that wasn't even dreamed of when
men like Ben Franklin, John Hancock, and George Washington roamed the earth…...
For all of our success, many things that Americans unquestioningly accept today
would have been considered intolerable to the Founding Fathers.....To Read More.....

About Me

Green is a mixture of blue and yellow. That is the only factual definition of green that will stand the test of time. After that; any other definition is a corruption of a perfectly nice color. I have been an exterminator for 35 years. I have served as a trustee on industry association boards representing pesticide and fertilizer applicators actively for almost 25 years. I believe that what we do isn't just a job; it's a mission! We are that thin gray line that mans the wall telling the world; "no one will harm you on my watch". I also believe that to be green is to be irrational, misanthropic and morally defective. They are the barbarians at the gate we have to stand against. Our greatest worry is those within who support and facilitate their misanthropic goals.